Recent Comments

Prev  2306  2307  2308  2309  2310  2311  2312  2313  2314  2315  2316  2317  2318  2319  2320  2321  Next

Comments 115651 to 115700:

115651. daniel at 11:46 AM on 12 July 2010
        Sea level rise is exaggerated
        Riccardo at 06:08 AM on 12 July, 2010 Yes, it tells me that short term variations are quite possible within the paleo data set. It is verified by the highly deviant tide gauge results still lying within the uncertainties of the modern sedimentary data.
115652. scaddenp at 11:01 AM on 12 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        BP. "Legitimate adjustments necessitated by instrumental bias simply can't look like this" Why not?? I cant really imagine how you would expect such a graph to look without a very deep looking at station procedures and changes. We had a similar argument about NZ stations - screams that "adjustments" were being made to give more warming. You cannot resolve these without looking at the individual stations that are supposedly adjusted wrong. NIWA published details on adjustment cases where it was high. eg Hokitika and also showed the trends for the record for those stations that had no moves at all. NZ Temp Record Your arguments about the temperature record are empty till you can show the adjustment is wrong - or publish a better way to adjust the record. I am disappointed that you have declined to discuss the consilience issue - what do you the chances are that there are systematic errors in the independent records for sealevel, glacial volume and temperature that will somehow make AGW go away? I am all for skepticism and close examination of the science so long as you also acknowledge the weight of evidence and recognize that we are very likely facing a serious problem. Public policy cant wait on perfect science.
115653. scaddenp at 10:49 AM on 12 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        Geoguy - This "since my model predicts what I see, therefore my interpretation of what I see is correct” is I think a complete mis-characterization of the argument. How do you know why havent found all the drivers for climate? Answer - you can never know. Proof is impossible in science. However, what you have to do with models all the time is make predictions from them and compare to reality. Every time you get you right, it improves the confidence. The correct characterisation is more like "since my model predicts what I see, I have no reason to reject the model”. Now tell my what alternative theory of climate that you like that can make that statement?
115654. Philippe Chantreau at 10:00 AM on 12 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        Albatross, my comment referred mainly to the acidification post. I would have thought that BP would not so quickly reiterate accusations in another thread, like he did here in post 74.
115655. Geo Guy at 09:32 AM on 12 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        My cudos to you for an entertaining article. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and tend to side with much of what you said. I do take exception to the statement that hotties are characterized as latte sipping – heck I enjoy a good latte now and then! Hmmm maybe that makes me a “coolie” instead??  As for the chain saw wielding, overweight, middle aged man who drives an old 4WD – I plead guilty as charged!. I need my chainsaw to clear the dead trees that happen from time to time on our property; I am not a hard body ….well I enjoy a cold beer now and then; and I drive a 1993 Isuzu Trooper because it is the best vehicle I have ever owned (380,000 km and still going strong!) and I need the 4WD when we get heavy snowfalls (30 to 50 cm) otherwise we would suffer from a bad case of cabin fever!! Apart from that description, the balance of your characterization does not apply to me.  Now I am a “frostie,” not because I am a denier (a term I believe better fits the extreme element of the “frostie’s side just as alarmist best fits the extreme views of that “other side”). Rather I feel there is a role to play in questioning a side when the evidence supporting that side is not iron clad. Before I elaborate further, allow me to post a philosophy which I believe is embedded within the process of scientific evolution. As scientists we must continually question the “status quo”. If we stop doing so, our understanding of science will cease to evolve. Hence despite what the “science” may tell us, there is a definite role for taking a contrarian position. Science is rarely definitive. The application of science is what changes over time and is the basis upon which we evolve as a species. Perhaps we frosties have taken our position because a) we tend to be well educated and b) our education is supplemented with substantial work in our field? As a geologist who first graduated in the early 1970’s and who has spent a substantial time in the field applying what I learned at university, I have come to appreciate the vast differences that exist between scientific principles and the application of those principles in the field. From that I have learned to question and re-question my own observations and my own interpretation of those observations in order to arrive at the best interpretation possible. From those exercises I make it a point to always look at data from all sides and it is this philosophy that places me on the side questioning the validity of reports such as those published by the IPCC. I am not saying I am right and am not saying the other side is wrong. What I do believe is that the answer lies somewhere in the middle of the two positions. We are not talking about irrefutable proof as I contend we are unable to even get close to such a stance until such time as we know everything there is to know about ALL climate drivers in our system. We still have a long way to go in order to get to such a position. Now I don’t have a problem with anyone establishing a position on a subject based on specific criteria or data. However I encourage people on both sides of the argument to seriously assess the evidence from the other side instead of out right rejecting it as is what happens so often. Instead of accepting a paper that was “peer reviewed” as proof of its factual basis, read the paper with a critical eye to identify weaknesses in the argument being put forward. In many instances the conclusions of a peer reviewed paper are only applicable to the environment upon which the study was based and expanding them to a global environment can’t be supported. For instance, recently there was an article posted in this blog dealing with the disappearance of certain species of lizards in Mexico and other locales in the world. There was also a paper published recently that focused on the disappearance of certain species of snakes in geographic areas similar to those identified in the lizard study.. Two studies, the same observations but two conclusions: one pointed to global warming (the lizard study); the other concluded more information was needed to identify the cause. With regards to your sample of temperatures, I believe you have illustrated what I believe is a fault in many arguments which essentially boils down to “since my model predicts what I see, therefore my interpretation of what I see is correct”. How unscientific can one get with such an argument? Since when is it acceptable to cast out statistical theory in favour of a “gut hunch”? Given that each side of the debate can take that same data and apply scientific principles to arrive at proof supporting their respective positions simply illustrates the paradox that exists within the debate itself. As for using models to prove any theory, well that is another problem I have with the debate. Too often people are stating that because a model predicts an outcome we observe today, then the observation is proof that the model is accurate and therefore the theory embedded within the model is true. Sorry but such logic does not fall under the auspices of scientific proof. If it does then the octopus in Germany that had a 100% prediction rate in selecting the winner of certain games at the world cup would be classified as a valid model! Whether you have a model in mind or not has nothing to do with the accuracy of your interpretation of data. I would venture to say that since you do have a model in mind and that you allow that model to affect the way in which you interpret the data, your interpretation is then biased at the outset by the model you have in mind. I would like to outline where I believe my position differs with that of the “hotties” but alas my post would be way too long. Now if the moderator of this blog would welcome an article from me where I elaborate those differences, I would welcome the opportunity to do just that!
115656. johnd at 09:20 AM on 12 July 2010
        Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
        Peter Hogarth at 07:20 AM, Peter, concentrating for a moment on the location of the instrumentation sites in relation to the tree locations. The instrumentation sites seem well dispersed, however quite some distance from most tree locations especially those at the higher elevations where differences could be significant. I want to mention an example of a study that was related to me by a friend who actually peer reviewed some research that has some relevance I feel, at least philosophically. The research was undertaken in my region but this example could be relevant wherever the natural environment is being measured. The study was comparing the productivity of a pasture based enterprise in relation to climate factors, in particular precipitation. The study was duly completed and sent with it's very positive results for peer review. Fortunately one of the peer reviewers was considered one of the most knowledgeable scientists in that particular field of research, certainly he knew far more than the research scientist who conducted the study. However, more importantly, he also had close personal knowledge of the location of the research site and the first thing he picked up on was the location of the site in relation to the official weather station that provided the required data. The weather station was reasonably close, about 15 km, however the reviewer happened to know that that particular weather station was located in a rain shadow, and any precipitation data collected from there was not representative of the wider area, especially the location of the research site. Thus the conclusions reached by the researcher were completely wrong. I doubt than anyone called upon to peer review the paper who did not have the same personal knowledge as my friend would have understood the significance of those 15 km, certainly the researcher himself who conducted the study didn't. I keep this example in mind whenever I am trying to understand what a peer reviewed study has found. I try and see firstly if any climate data used is from the actual location of the study, and thus can be accepted as relevant, or is it from some distant point, or some general data that has been assumed to be relevant. The second point is whether it is likely or not that those unknown persons called upon to conduct a peer review would have an equal or better understanding of the subject, and the location than those conducting the research. This of course remains an unknown, but in some fields one can accept that there would be better qualified persons who are perhaps more knowledgeable than the researchers, however, when new concepts are being presented, I am often left wondering just how many peer reviewers would be capable of grasping the essence of such new concepts, especially if it goes against the established understanding. We can only but wonder, but ultimately time may answer one way or another as it has done so for those renowned scholars in the past who had trouble getting others to see what appeared so clear to them.
115657. JMurphy at 08:12 AM on 12 July 2010
        An account of the Watts event in Perth
        skepticstudent wrote : ...but I can't seriously believe anything this person writes... Care to be a bit more specific or do you not believe every word written ? How about the start : "The Watts climate tour appeared in Perth on Tuesday evening." What don't you believe about that ?
115658. Peter Hogarth at 07:20 AM on 12 July 2010
        Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
        johnd at 04:43 AM on 12 July, 2010 John, I agree it is a complex subject. However much of what you say appears to be conjecture and not directly referenced to the research I have seen. I suggest that if you look at the recent references supplied, particularly the ones from the last two years, there is much to learn. There has been a lot of focus on DP and some of the correlation work with temperature is highly convincing (I previously mentioned the seasonal growth and year on year growth correlating with local temperature variations) and Buntgen 2008 for example shows temperature monitoring sites on tha map above. I suspect this would be inconsistent with CO2 as main factor.
115659. Riccardo at 06:08 AM on 12 July 2010
        Sea level rise is exaggerated
        daniel, "What I am saying is that the tide gauge data points fit inside of that if it were extended over sample 1." They are inside the sedimentary data uncertainty and we expect them to stay there for a while given the difference in the slopes. Ok, but they do have a different slope. Does this tell you something?
115660. skepticstudent at 05:29 AM on 12 July 2010
        An account of the Watts event in Perth
        anything this person writes either. :-)
115661. skepticstudent at 05:28 AM on 12 July 2010
        An account of the Watts event in Perth
        John I respect you and I've learned some things on your blog, but I can't seriously believe anything this person rights, and I think you've damaged the respectability of your blog by allowing her to submit a guest post. I don't expect this post to stand but it was meant for you anyway.
115662. Paul D at 05:09 AM on 12 July 2010
        Is Willis wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility II
        Berényi Péter

        Or it's not stored at all, just goes to space. After all that's the coldest heat reservoir around (2.7 K).

        That's one of those junk throw away statements. As has been pointed out, the only way the energy can escape to space is via radiation in the upper atmosphere. To do that it has to be fed from below, but GHGs inhibit the provision of the energy 'feedstock' that the upper atmosphere needs.

115663. johnd at 05:05 AM on 12 July 2010
        Sea level rise is exaggerated
        Peter Hogarth at 16:21 PM, Peter, the comment you make about modern tide gauges taking measurements every 6 minutes or so interests me. Given that at some locations the time it takes for the tide to rise can be considerably longer than it takes for it to fall, just a quick look at one site showed over 15 hours rising, 9 hours falling, would taking such regular measurements introduce a bias into the average when comparing against those records where the average is that of the high and low tide measurements?
115664. johnd at 04:43 AM on 12 July 2010
        Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
        Peter Hogarth at 02:38 AM, whilst temperature is one of the many factors that influences plant growth, and not the dominant one, it's increasingly seems to me that the selection of sites, or groups of trees, is done by finding trees that by COINCIDENCE rather than by science, seemingly track temperature sufficiently well enough for them to be considered useful indicators. I say by coincidence, because if all the other factors that are perhaps even more important in influencing tree growth were sufficiently well understood to be quantified, then all trees should be able to be used as proxy indicators. But more than that, if those factors were able to be quantified, the divergence problem would not be, well, a problem. The problem is not that the growth of trees that had been previously selected as temperature indicators began to diverge, the problem is that the reasons are not understood, and this is happening at a time when the resources and knowledge is available that should be able to identify such reasons. If those reasons are not understood well enough to be able to account for present day situations, then how can anyone be confident enough to claim that those same, still unknown factors, have not been present and an influence, either positive or negative, at other previous times. I would hope that the selection of "good" sites involved more than someone with a wooden ruler in one hand and a temperature chart in the other, but that is what it seems to come down to. The one thing that is always in the back of my mind whenever tree growth ring data is used is that what has been done to ensure that the tree growth is not tracking CO2 levels rather than temperature. With the Buntgen 2008 study, about half of the available sites were selected because of their supposed historic correlation. But those sites used in other studies where the divergence problem is now evident also were supposed to have a historic correlation, so obviously some things change over time. But that doesn't mean that they are only changing now, and haven't done so in the past. So what is there to say that perhaps the basic assumptions used to model tree growth against temperature are wrong, and that instead, the other half of the trees that were rejected are better indicators once everything has been allowed for. If we were to work backwards and select trees that today show good growth correlation with temperature, then those trees that are now showing divergence would be rejected, or else any modelling done that correlated their present day growth with temperatures would when applied to historic growth rings, present a different result. The other thought that is also always in the back of my mind is how well are the actual site conditions documented over time. Temperatures can vary widely even between close localities, so correlation should be to and with site temperatures, not regional or global. Precipitation patterns can vary widely over just a few kilometres. Given that some of the locations where the samples have been taken seem to be remote, perhaps even these most basic of all factors have not been accurately accounted for.
115665. Peter Hogarth at 04:30 AM on 12 July 2010
        Sea level rise is exaggerated
        In order to also start some fresh productive discussion, hot off the press is the following from Llovel 2010 This is a new measured result from GRACE which goes at least some way to confirm explanations of seasonal variations in mean sea level, and partially answers previous points on this post and also answers some questions on the visualizing sea level post. The further relevance is that land storage contribution to mean sea level trend and budget is slightly negative, giving -0.22 +/-0.05 mm/year, confirming modeling results for this with direct measurements for the first time.
115666. Albatross at 04:22 AM on 12 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        Philippe @87, "You went looking for what was wrong and you found it, although what you found did not exist. That is the definition of bias. Philippe, Peter recently made the same error when raging against the lowering of pH. He assures us that he is searching for the truth, but his approach seems to be inconsistent with that.
115667. Peter Hogarth at 03:52 AM on 12 July 2010
        Sea level rise is exaggerated
        daniel at 23:20 PM on 11 July, 2010 One thing slightly bugged me about my chart, the slight offset between the tide gauge data and the "centre" of the error envelopes, where we would expect the real trend to probably be. I checked the tide stations closer to the site. One (New London, CT, with a shorter record from 1938) is very local, but the other (from 1856, NY) has the longest record. I charted the NY record for this reason. I've now noticed there is a small vertical offset (not unusual between stations) between the two that (subjectively at least) neatly resolves the visible offset in the chart.
115668. Peter Hogarth at 02:38 AM on 12 July 2010
        Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
        johnd at 10:22 AM on 11 July, 2010 No, I think you have misunderstood the methodology. We do not have controlled experimental conditions. The site selection process involves looking at older tree ring data to see if the "site" is likely to give results which are affected by temperature, rather than other factors (such as drought), by comparing pre 1934 tree rings data with pre 1934 historical climate data. If it is a "good" site, on this basis, then the later tree ring data is examined to assess more recent effects of temperature (other factors notwithstanding). No assumptions are made to pre-select on the basis of correlations in later data. This is important. The authors admit that this cannot account for changes in other factors in the meanwhile, but if the correlation with instrumental temperature continues in later data, then confidence increases. I think you see the logic of this?
115669. Peter Hogarth at 02:15 AM on 12 July 2010
        Sea level rise is exaggerated
        daniel at 23:20 PM on 11 July, 2010 No, you have not said this until now. What you have argued is that extending the approx 1mm/year long term linear trend from pre-tide gauge data beyond 1856 by including point 1 gives a 1.2mm trend and error bars which can fully accomodate the total tide gauge data record anywhere inside this trends error envelope, therefore you argue this paper should not be used as evidence that the recent 2.8mm/year trend is unusual. Your case for including point 1 in an overall 1.2mm trend is invalid. Clearly, the density of tide gauge data makes any influence of point 1 marginal on the measured 2.8mm/yr trend since 1856, clearly, the recent measured trend is diverging away from the long term paleo trend. That point 1 error bars overlap the tide data possibly validates point 1, but the fact that the tide gauge data overlaps point 1 does not validate extending the pre-1856 trend. The post 1856 trend is already determined as measured fact by the tide gauge data. Point 1, statistically speaking, is on this trend. The question you are asking really, is: Can the 150 year tide gauge data trend be accomodated inside the pre 1856 error envelope, and show that the longer term trend could most likely have missed similar episodes of acceleration in the past? This is the question I address in my chart. The chart I have given shows the error envelopes based on the statistics given for each point, up to the start of the tide gauge data, which has much lower standard deviation and represents the measured data. It is not the same as a linear trend. It is likely that the envelope will follow or at least accomodate whatever the true trend was. We can only ascribe a probability to this. It is barely possible to fit the tide gauge data into the 2 sigma envelope in one pre 1800 place, but it is not a "good" statistical fit anywhere over any approx 150 year period except after 1800 (by comparing with at least three paleo points, though this is not a strong test). It is not possible to fit inside the 1 sigma envelope anywhere, and the data series deviates away in opposite directions above and below the envelope, indicating significant systematic trend error. I repeat that your suggestion is possible, but not "likely" from this data. Of course we need a reality check, and the temperature record and other work I referenced strengthens the case presented in the paper, and further weakens your hypothesis.
115670. Philippe Chantreau at 01:44 AM on 12 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        BP, you missed the point. The point was not about the data, it was about your attitude. You started with the assumption that the papers came to conclusions that were wrong. You went looking for what was wrong and you found it, although what you found did not exist. That is the definition of bias. What you found did not exist but you found it anyway because you were so eager to find it that you were going to no matter what. Then you assumed, again without anything to back it up, that the (non-existing) flaws that you found were due to an intent to deceive from the authors. Don't try to deny that, your anger and accusations are patent in many of your posts, and explicit in the acidification one. But you are yet to present ANY kind of evidence of an intent to deceive or even that a paper is wrong. You raise some valid points, but their significance is far below what you suggest (especially the fraud suggestions) and, frankly, you should drop the attitude. It is quite obvious that you need to watch your own bias way more than that which you see in others.
115671. DarkSkywise at 23:54 PM on 11 July 2010
        How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
        Baa Humbug at 20:04 PM on 11 July, 2010: "Human nature JM. When one starts reading the thread and comes across a "hidden" comment, curiosity kicks in," In the beginning: definitely. After a while: no. I've been a mod/admin on several large forums where no post rating systems were allowed, because too many people go around "plussing and minusing" not because they think posts are good or bad, but because they want their own views in sight and others' views hidden. And most of it is being done by one side only, just like with online polls where 60% says ther earth is cooling, it's a natural cycle and AGW is a conspiracy to raise taxes. The result is not only that only one side of the argument is really shown, but it also keeps many people from the other side from posting. Some people just don't like posting anything anymore (especially when they work long and hard on their posts), if the posts will be hidden anyway. Anymoo, my experience with most forums with post rating systems is that they turn political in no time - and it's nearly always the same political side. "All sceintsist are fruads!!!!11~" +283 -12 "Research has shown that (insert lots of text here) which shows a clear trend towards warming." +7 -453
115672. daniel at 23:47 PM on 11 July 2010
        Sea level rise is exaggerated
        read above pete
115673. Peter Hogarth at 23:34 PM on 11 July 2010
        Sea level rise is exaggerated
        daniel at 13:42 PM on 11 July, 2010 "Understatement of the year" "overstatement of the year" etc. Histrionics does not make up for lack of knowledge, nor does it engender respect. To put these sea level numbers into context, the sea level varies by around 1m every day close to this site, and through year seasonal and tidal variations add to this. I believe I have shown from the data that your argument (that large intersample variations containing trends similar to those of the past 150 years are "likely") is weak.
115674. werecow at 23:34 PM on 11 July 2010
        Irregular Climate podcast: episode 7
        It's too bad Graham can't do the podcast anymore. I like the more natural flow of conversation that results from having a co-host. Still, this was an interesting episode. I'm reading the IPCC Assessment Assessment report now. As a Dutchie, I felt a bit queezy when one of our government officials played right into the hype. But I guess it was the appropriate political move to make, and some good has come out of it; It's good to see that, even though they provide some constructive criticisms, the conclusions are soundly reaffirmed.
115675. daniel at 23:20 PM on 11 July 2010
        Sea level rise is exaggerated
        Riccardo at 18:04 PM on 11 July, 2010 No you see the error envelope on Peter's graph. They are continuous lines that extend along either side of the paleo trend. What I am saying is that the tide gauge data points fit inside of that if it were extended over sample 1. The MSL does anyway. You can see this more clearly in Donnely which uses averaged tide gauge data which lie over the sample 1 uncertainty box. Donnelly and Peter seem to think that this overlap supports their case but actually it supports mine. You can see that paleo samples do not adequately show us where the true sea level is because they have such high uncertainties. A big deal is made about the centres of the boxes but clearly the tide gauge data shows the centres aren't that important because the centre of sample box 1 does not lie directly on the averaged data point trend of the tide gauge data. The mean height of sample 1 fits the tide gauge data at 1950 rather than the center of the assigned date range which is 1975. That's directly measured data lying on the very extreme of the 95% confidence interval for the mean height estimate of sample 1 and then I'm told tbat short term deviations in the older data are unlikely to be far from the centres of the boxes or the linear model. For at least three samples 8, 10 & 11 the linear model is far from the box centres. You guys can't have it both ways.
115676. Baa Humbug at 20:44 PM on 11 July 2010
        How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
        Thankyou for the clarification. My use of the term was taken from the article itself, hence why I put it in parantheses. From Brookes article... "I don't think there is any hope for the lunatic fringe on either side. If your starting point is that the people on the other side are evil incarnate, then you won't move from that." For what it's worth, whoever owns and operates this blog has the right to set the rules. Those who don't like or agree with the rules can please themselves.
        Response:

        "My use of the term was taken from the article itself..."
        
        Hence the reinstatement. The comments policy here is based on behaviour, not whether the majority of readers agree with the comment, and generally works pretty well - I rarely have to overrule any action by the moderators and the discussion is IMHO of a high quality.
        

115677. Baa Humbug at 20:08 PM on 11 July 2010
        How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
        John Russell at 20:01 PM on 11 July, 2010 "Unfortunately I think your last post might be removed as arguably it's a little -- how shall I say -- aggressive? I hope my response is not". John I don't keep copies of my comments but I assure you it was not aggressive nor did it contain ad homs or such. If you follow the thread, there are replies to my deleted comment. You can glean from those replies if my comment was aggressive or out of line.
        Response: One of the moderators removed the comment because of a line about lunatic fringes which was deemed ad hominem. I reinstated the comment as there's a recent blog post that discusses this very subject.
115678. Baa Humbug at 20:04 PM on 11 July 2010
        How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
        JMurphy at 19:36 PM on 11 July, 2010 said... "What is not immediately on show (and needs active input from the viewer, if they can be bothered, to actually show), is not on show. Simple as that". Human nature JM. When one starts reading the thread and comes across a "hidden" comment, curiosity kicks in, A SINGLE CLICK OF THE MOUSE relieves that curiosity as to why the comment was hidden. hardly a task one can't be bothered with. As to why this function is used, I don't know. Hop over there and ask, you'll get a response. Also check out one of the lates popular threads, there are dozens and dozens of posts by people not in agreement with the host. None are deleted, none are hidden. The hide function is in the hands of the bloggers, not the host or mods. Once you are informed, then your comments about it become valid. It beats having ones comment removed without explanation like mine was here.
115679. John Russell at 20:01 PM on 11 July 2010
        How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
        OK , Baa Humbug, I agree; they're not removed, they're hidden. So why? When I've looked at them, the majority of these hidden comments seem quite reasonable counter arguments. Three, I hope, reasonable questions: why are they hidden? Why choose to hide (your word) dissent? To any casual observer finding the site what's the result of hiding dissent? Regarding your comment that was removed on this site; are you sure it was reasonable? There's lots of dissent here; it's treated robustly but courteously (if not it's removed). Several of my own comments have previously been removed because (I assume) they strayed slightly into the political arena. So, you see, we have both been 'victimised' evenly and fairly on this site! I hope you can agree. Unfortunately I think your last post might be removed as arguably it's a little -- how shall I say -- aggressive? I hope my response is not.
115680. kdkd at 19:51 PM on 11 July 2010
        How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
        I quite like the SS deletions policy, although I'd quite like to see a section called "the swamp" or something that contained all the deleted posts (anonymised if felt necessary).
115681. JMurphy at 19:36 PM on 11 July 2010
        How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
        Baa Humbug wrote : Any comment that accumulates more than 30 thumbs down votes gets "hidden" not removed. However, anybody wishing to read what the fuss was about, just needs to click the words "hidden due to rating" and the comment reappears. But why are they hidden ? To all intents and purposes they do not exist because they do not appear on the screen when you are viewing comments, so John Russell is correct when he states : It's a great system -- for Jo -- it means virtually every comment in the thread is in support of her viewpoint. What is not immediately on show (and needs active input from the viewer, if they can be bothered, to actually show), is not on show. Simple as that. I ask again : Why hide them ?
115682. Baa Humbug at 18:45 PM on 11 July 2010
        How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
        John Russell at 06:44 AM on 11 July, 2010 said... "I note that they have a voting system. If enough people give a comment the thumbs down, it's automatically removed. It's a great system -- for Jo -- it means virtually every comment in the thread is in support of her viewpoint. And it completely overwhelms any criticism." I'll assume you made this assumption out of ignorance. Any comment that accumulates more than 30 thumbs down votes gets "hidden" not removed. However, anybody wishing to read what the fuss was about, just needs to click the words "hidden due to rating" and the comment reappears. You noted in error. I note your pre concieved view and bias. p.s. I posted a comment here at the "hottie nottie" thread, comment number 16. IT WAS REMOVED with no explanation given. People in glass houses John.
115683. MarkR at 18:37 PM on 11 July 2010
        Is Willis wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility II
        #14 Arkadiusz: Shwartz et al don't say that RF calculations are likely incorrect. They say that their results are most likely explained by a combination of overestimated climate sensitivity OR a negative RF from atmospheric aerosols. And I quote: "the discrepancy cannot be apportioned between these two causes primarily because of present uncertainty in aerosol forcing." plus: "the forcing by doubled CO2, is approximately 3.7 W m-2." They're not saying CO2 RF has been overestimated, but that climate sensitivity may have been (or aerosols are cooling us)
115684. Riccardo at 18:04 PM on 11 July 2010
        Sea level rise is exaggerated
        daniel, could you please explain this sentence: "It clearly shows that modern swings in SLR fit inside the error envelope of a shallow, linear long term trend in paleo data". As I understand it, you're saying that the tide gauge seas level data (not trend) are within the trend error of paleo data. Comparing trends is to compare 1.0 mm/yr (+/- 0.2 mm/yr) with 2.4 mm/yr. Comparing sea level, instead, is to see if tide gauge data are within the limit of variability of sedimentary data. You're doing the latter, so you're not comparing trends. Is it possible, at least in principle, that there has been similar up swings at 2.4 mm/yr in the past? Yes, but putting physics aside. If you take the lower error bar of a point and the higher of another you might get such trends. But it's unlikely, there's nothing that make us think it's actually happened and it's hard to immagine a mechanism producing such up swings. Are you aware of a sudden increase in temperature or large land ice melt between 1300 and 1800 A.D.? Are you aware of other, higher resolution, datasets showing this swings?
115685. John Russell at 17:42 PM on 11 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        philipm at 10:35 AM on 11 July, 2010 says: "There are actually three categories, not two: 1. hotties – people who believe firmly that AGW is happening 2. frosties – people who believe firmly that AGW is not happening 3. scientists – people who believe the theory should stand up to testing against the evidence" I don't agree. What you write is elitist. I'm not a scientist, but neither am I in your group 1 or 2. About 20 years ago I was sceptical whether AGW was possible. I gradually changed my view as a result of exposure to the available information. I now trust that the majority of scientists, 'the consensus', have got it right. As far as I can understand the subject -- and I don't have to tell anyone here; it's highly complex -- the evidence stacks up to the point where I'd be a fool not to believe it. But am I certain? Definitely not; I'm old enough to have seen the scientific consensus shift on several topics before. However, do I think we should act on GHGs? You bet. Surely, any sensible person would weigh up the odds and be frightened about what the future might hold? To me anyone who is fighting (careful choice of word) AGW is either too frightened to confront the evidence or, perhaps, lacks a certain amount of imagination. Whatever the actual reason, the answer must lie in their psyche.
115686. daniel at 17:12 PM on 11 July 2010
        Sea level rise is exaggerated
        KR at 14:34 PM on 11 July, 2010 "you look at the larger gaps in the paleo data from this (and only this) paper, and assert that large SLR rates could occur in the spaces between the data points?" But also the large error limits of the points which indicate a high uncertainty as to where the true sea level was. "I point out between, because the slope between 9/11 and 7/8 that you use as an example shows an average slope of ~0.9-1.0mm/year" Well you clearly misunderstood me. I was saying within the small group 9-11 and also within a small group of 3-4 data points which include 7-8 either 7-10 or 5-8. "for such a large value of SLR (derivative) to occur in that period, there would have to be a corresponding low/negative SLR in that same period in order for the integral over that period to still yield ~1mm/yr?" Yeah, so, why is that so unlikely? I don't think we have to evoke negative trends to support my analysis.
115687. thingadonta at 16:43 PM on 11 July 2010
        IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
        I dont know what all the fuss is about. The Amazon rainforest wont change much until the Andes Mountains wear down (groundwater runoff), the Atlantic Ocean ceases to exist, and it doesn't rain when warm, moist, tropical air rises. Despite the 'peer-reviewed literature', seasonal droughts have nothing to do with long term rainfall patterns. The warming over the 20th century has shown no trend in Amazonian rainfall, because when warm moist air rises-it rains. The Amazon rainforest will still be here in much the same manner in a 100 years, even if all the IPCC T projections turn out to be correct.
115688. kdkd at 16:25 PM on 11 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        BP #81 Indeed, we do not know why the ocean heat models and measurements are problematic, and why they are inconsistent with the bigger picture of large amounts of independently derived evidence showing that anthropogenic warming is a serious concern. Not just the various temperature datasets in case you wanted to take issue with that small part of the big picture by the way. But this is not the same as the hard reductionist argument that you have been making, which you now seem to be retreating from somewhat - given that you have not addresed the most important issue in my post, that your arguments to date are unable to address the critical issue of system interdependency...
115689. Peter Hogarth at 16:21 PM on 11 July 2010
        Sea level rise is exaggerated
        daniel at 14:18 PM on 10 July, 2010 A quick chart with all of the data used by Donnelly 2004, except the tide gauge data (NY) uses monthly mean values and extends to today. The tide gauge data consists of very frequent samples (modern readings are every six minutes or so) averaged over each month. As such errors are extremely low. The seasonal MSL variations are retained in this chart and represent measured mean sea level. The overall long term linear trend is 2.8mm/year, however in this tide gauge data the trend has gradually accelerated over the measurement period. The sediment, pollution and pollen derived data is shown with approximate two sigma and one sigma error envelopes. However it should be noted that the variance from a straight line fit for all points is very low, and in addition a smooth curve fit is further suggested by the relatively low level of decadal and inter-annual trend variation in the 150 year tide gauge record. The accelerating trend in sea level rise is evident in the overall data set. The error bars on the sediment data overlap the actual tide measurements even when an annual MSL average or overall fitted linear trend for tide gauge data is used.
115690. KR at 14:49 PM on 11 July 2010
        Is Willis wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility II
        Actually, RSVP - the atmosphere represents only a few percent at most of the thermal mass involved in the energy retention of the greenhouse effect. The observed increase in back-radiation, and decrease in top of the atmosphere (TOA) at greenhouse gas wavelengths indicate the energy retention, while the ocean heat content (OHC), overall temperature measurements, glacial retreat, polar ice decrease, and seasonal movement (etc, etc) show the added heat in the Earth system. The increasing CO2 isn't absorbing huge amounts of energy from the ocean, it's slowing it's loss back to the atmosphere and to space. And thus the oceans heat up... For all intents and purposes you can treat the atmosphere as a thickening blanket for the land and ocean, not as a thermal mass. It only holds enough energy for it's temperature to be sufficient to radiate energy to space, and that's trivial in regards to the thermal mass of land/sea.
115691. KR at 14:34 PM on 11 July 2010
        Sea level rise is exaggerated
        So, daniel - you look at the larger gaps in the paleo data from this (and only this) paper, and assert that large SLR rates could occur in the spaces between the data points? I point out between, because the slope between 9/11 and 7/8 that you use as an example shows an average slope of ~0.9-1.0mm/year, as far as I can determine with a quick examination (certainly not >2mm/year!!). You do realize that these data points for sea level show the integral of the SLR over time, and that for such a large value of SLR (derivative) to occur in that period, there would have to be a corresponding low/negative SLR in that same period in order for the integral over that period to still yield ~1mm/yr? If you recognize that, great, we're half-way there, and perhaps past arguing and back into discussion over what could cause such high variation around the 1.0mm/year mean for 1300-1850.
115692. daniel at 14:06 PM on 11 July 2010
        Sea level rise is exaggerated
        "I've said it before, but it didn't seem to register - if a major upswing like the currently observed 2.4 mm/yr SLR occurred in the 1300-1850 period, the paleo data points of sea level couldn't fall anywhere close to the linear fit line for the 1.0+/-0.2 mm/year SLR trend. " ...and I've said it before KR, that's total bunkem. Provide a graph to show your claim is true. You will find yourself dissapointed by the rashness of your claims. "If there was a brief 100-150 year rise at 2.4 (as currently observed) there would be a step change in the observed paleo sea levels. That is not shown in the data. " I can see two possible points where that rate or a rate closer to 2.4mm/yr than 1.0 mm/yr. could occur. Best candidate is samples 9-11 followed by sample ranges including 7-8. " If you have a physical process for something like that, I would love to see it. " Please discuss the evidence for a lack of active drivers in detail citing the relevant papers.
115693. daniel at 13:56 PM on 11 July 2010
        Sea level rise is exaggerated
        Riccardo at 04:34 AM on 11 July, 2010 " ...but you're comparing the values of sea level with sea level rise, i.e. the trend." I'm only really comparing the trends. "It doesn't matter if the recent "high" resolution sea level data fall within the uncertainty of the sedimentary trend," It clearly shows that modern swings in SLR fit inside the error envelope of a shallow, linear long term trend in paleo data that is within the rate error limits of Donnelly's 1.0mm/yr +/-0.2mm/yr. Therefore there is no evidence to suggest tjhy could not have occurred in the past or that recent swings are unusual at Barn Island. " what matters for Donnelly conclusions is that the two trends are significantly different." They have not shown to be different. Directly measured, high certainty, high res, short term data cannot be compared to it's exact opposite ie. indirectly measured, low certainty, low res, long term trends.
115694. daniel at 13:42 PM on 11 July 2010
        Sea level rise is exaggerated
        Peter Hogarth at 07:48 AM on 11 July, 2010 "Several data points derived from peat sediments are given where the dating of the sediment has uncertainties." A candidate for understatement of the year. Sample 7 has a height uncertainty of +/- 10.4cm and a date range of 172 years, Sample 8 does not do much better. Sample 9 generally dates older than sample 10 despite attempts using the principle of superposition to eliminate such assignment errors and sample 11 cannot be definitively defined between two date ranges which span 123 years in total. "I argue that any variation is constrained by the error envelope of the points..." And here we have overstatement of the year. Gentlemen I will provide a graph with linear fits between small groupings of the data points if you lik and you will see that on the short term deviations fall easily within the error envelopes. But then you will claim that such 2-4 point linear trends are statistically insignificant. But that's the point! Donnelly's study can't make short term comparisons so any comparison to the recent data is invalid. Donnelly doesn't give us enough data to produce statistically significant trends on the short term. " ...and the physical processes which might cause fast variations." and "I have provided a considerable body of evidence which supports this, but you have still focused on this data from this paper and provided a simple chart (but without any statistical analysis)." Well we could discuss how well these physical processes are known and you could cite specifically which papers deal with causation but I would at least like you to acknowledge that this paper, using the data it provides only, has no case to make. Donnelly has gone to all this effort to determine a linear trend in the hope it would alone provide the evidence. He only cites other climate studies not SLR studies to support his conclusions and he admits they only roughly do so. I fear that this is the kind of study that is used to determine causation of SLR (a rough correlation to paleoclimate data) where other, as yet unknown, ocean heating or seismic factors may also be playing a role. It is often claimed that climate science is in it's infancy so you should not be surprised when others claim SLR drivers may not be properly understood. If this statistically insignificant kind of study is used to determine causation then I am very worried indeed about what we do and don't know about SLR drivers and what the known drivers were actually doing in the recent and distant past. You do realise that conceding this point and accepting the poor quality of this paper does not mean you lose the war. I would love to discuss other papers but if you can't bring yourselves to accurately critique this paper what point is there in moving on to others? You can't say that all the other papers validate this study without discussing them in detail (Donnelly doesn't). You can't use dodgy materials to build a strong house. There needs to be other studies that are of higher quality than this one in order to support this one. Citations please (I haven't read your review articles Pete, I've been busy defending an obvious and very pertinent point... amongst living my life). As to the comments about my lack of statistical analysis can you please state exactly what you want? I can do a chi squared test if you like? Can you see the R squared value in my least squares fit? Do you think these kinds of analyses are going to support your cause? They will only support mine further. If I do a chi squared test on whether the 1mm/yr trend is significant on short term collections of the paleo data do you think we will get a statistically significant trend? That pendulum swings both ways and mostly in my favour (if not completely)
115695. Berényi Péter at 12:20 PM on 11 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        #74 Dappledwater at 09:32 AM on 11 July, 2010 And what exactly would that be? Like this:
115696. Berényi Péter at 12:16 PM on 11 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        #75 Philippe Chantreau at 10:15 AM on 11 July, 2010 you have already proven in the ocean acidification thread that you are looking for certain things in the data Not yet finished with that. I'll recompute the upper layer. However, there is a small problem with OHC and acidification trends. Either heat is sequestered easily in deep ocean (it would solve the mystery of Trenberth's missing heat) or not. In the first case dissolved carbon dioxide should go down just as easily, making serious large scale pH change impossible. In the second case Earth is simply not accumulating heat whenever it does not show up in the upper layer of oceans. As it happens for extended periods, how comes heat is not trapped as it is supposed to?
115697. Berényi Péter at 12:00 PM on 11 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        #79 kdkd at 11:23 AM on 11 July, 2010 you have to make the assumption of a perfect measurement model No. It's just correct error bars and clear statement of uncertainties I am looking for. It is also perfectly legitimate and scientifically correct to say under certain circumstances that  W e   d o   n o t   k n o w.
115698. Berényi Péter at 11:52 AM on 11 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        #76 chris at 10:34 AM on 11 July, 2010 Chris, none of your references addresses the question what's happened in 1990 that suddenly prevented heat going deeper than 700 m while global ocean overturning rate didn't show any abrupt decline. In fact of course nothing like that has happened. It was instrumentation that changed abruptly.
115699. kdkd at 11:23 AM on 11 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        BP #66 "no, I am not advocating a pure reductionist approach here" Well you're exposing your prejudiced approach to the topic then, because it's impossible to reconcile this with your statement that "each piece of evidence should be able to stand on its own right, irrespective of any support that may or may not come from another domain" (#40). For these two statements to be consistent with each other I think you have to make the assumption of a perfect measurement model, and probably a host of other spurious things such as a lack of interdependence in the system, a lack of stochasticity, both of which are clearly false. We certainly don't see any admission of interdependence in your arguments, despite the fact that the climate system is clearly made up of highly interdependent subsystems.
115700. owl905 at 11:12 AM on 11 July 2010
        Hotties vs Frosties?
        If this had appeared on a history test, the question would have been “What British Prime Minister conducted his relationship with Germany like this?” And the answer would have been Stanley Baldwin. The issue itself is presented as less important than the argument, like a child watching his parents have a fight; ‘the pro-pollutionists are just a bit misguided and protective of their standard of living.’ The science itself is sanitized and diffused with the use of the word ‘believe’ for all positions. The convoluted use of the cube example illustrates how to miss the point – there is a reality answer for the cube, just as there is one reality answer for the effect of GHG pollution increases. It’s not public v private funding, and it’s not which brand is best. The ‘proof’ duck in the comments is an example of removing reality from the issue. The response is simple - ‘Prove the Greenhouse Effect doesn’t exist’. Failing that, there is a global issue of urgent priority. Here are some existing proofs: Micro: The heat properties of GHG gases at the chemistry level; Observable: The heating rate of three (or more) beakers filled with air, exhaled breath, and CO2 gas on a tabletop (identical heat sources); General: The unsaturated nature of the effect - repeat the tabletop experiment in rooms with various levels of background CO2 (outdoor, indoor, closed office building); Macro: Variation in effect when none, weak, moderate and super-charged atmospheres are present - the four inner planets and the Moon; Historical: The growing GHG anomaly since the industrial revolution started; Analysis: The human sources of the GHG gases. Therefore, the increase in concentration of Greenhouse gases will, as a consequence, facilitate increases in global temperatures. Proof: the data trends since 1880 validate this proposition. The biggest fallacy in the article is that getting along is more important than getting something done – while the pollution-rate is accelerating. Semczyszak gave the best example of the pro-pollution bankruptcy – “Schwartz's work … “We know we have to change the course of this ship, and we know the direction of the change, but we don't know how much we need to change the course or how soon we have to do it.” - has to have an answer.” That’s incorrect – that’s being diagnosed with a disease that will kill you, but you won’t do anything before you know how fast. It’s the weakest response. This article comes up very short; it implies that there is, effectively, a static problem out there and some side discussion gets everyone to eventually buy in on a right, or at least really good, answer. The problem is accelerating. The responses so far have been minimal, discredited, and sabotaged. This article forgets to actually face the problem and take a a stand. While the intent of the article is commendable, perhaps even a pinch of noble, it recommends pause. That is actually further pause - inaction and delay is turning into drift and analysis paralysis - just as it did with Stanley Baldwin's foreign policy.

Prev  2306  2307  2308  2309  2310  2311  2312  2313  2314  2315  2316  2317  2318  2319  2320  2321  Next